| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
jpeg2000jpeg2000Posted Aug 26, 2007 0:31 UTC (Sun) by socket (guest, #43)In reply to: jpeg2000 by eru Parent article: Google Summer of Code: Mozilla Projects
...Assuming someone won't come up with something better and patent-free in the meantime. There are probably *already* other formats better than jpeg2000, not including any developments in the next 13 years...
(Log in to post comments)
jpeg2000 Posted Aug 30, 2007 4:39 UTC (Thu) by roelofs (subscriber, #2599) [Link] There are probably *already* other formats better than jpeg2000, not including any developments in the next 13 years...Hell, in my experience, regular JPEG is better than JPEG-2000, both quality-wise and size-wise, and what I found online (real users, not researchers or graphics-tools vendors) completely agreed with that assessment. Of course, it could be that the encoders for images in question just sucked massively, but it seems odd that all of them should be so bad--particularly when they're being held up as examples of JPEG-2000's quality. If you like grass that looks like split-pea soup, OK, maybe JP2K is just what you're looking for...but I prefer to see the blades. I'd love to hear about exceptions, preferably involving publicly available images (the JPEG-2000 and lossless versions, at a minimum; I can create my own JPEG-1991 [or whatever] images at arbitrary quality settings). Greg
|
|
||||||||||||